Higgs Boson Discovered?!

[xtifr]

Once again, Farsight is attempting to derail a discussion of physics in order to promote his Relativity+. This is getting seriously annoying. No reputable publisher or reviewer has ever passed on Relativity+. It is a theory held by Farsight alone, and properly rejected by every actual physicist that has ever stumbled across it. Furthermore, since Relativity+ has no place for the Higgs, it is pretty much off-topic in this thread (aside from, perhaps, a brief mention of the fact that this particular theory does not include the Higgs).

I, for one, would like to learn more about the Higgs and how it fits into mainstream physics. I don't care about silly arguments about whether mainstream physics has lost its way--the evidence for that is extremely dubious in my opinion, and has been discussed in great length in the threads for Relativity+. Discussions of Relativity+ should be conducted in the thread for Relativity+. They have no place in this thread, except, as I mentioned, for a brief mention.

I would like to appeal to the moderators to help get this discussion back on track.

 

[Farsight]

Farsight is comletely incapable of understandIng Higgs' 1964 paper. His pretend physics has been exposed for what it is. Go ahead, Farsight -- prove me wrong. Explain the 1964 Higgs paper and point out the errors.

No, I challenged you to explain it. You can't. Because you don't understand it at all. But you'd rather put your faith in something you don't understand instead paying attention to what I've said and attempting to understand it, or alternatively attempting to expose some flaw. You can't, because there is no flaw. I'm sorry Perpetual Student, but with that attitude you will never learn anything.

 

[Farsight]

I just wanted to pop in here because I noticed this particular nugget of "wisdom", and while most of this nonsense has been soundly refuted, I didn't see any direct response to it.

The nub of what I've said is the energy of a body depends upon its energy content. It hasn't been soundly refuted. If you beg to differ try referring to it or repeating it.

This is, of course, not true. The photon has spin. It has nonzero angular momentum. And it keeps that momentum no matter how close its energy gets to zero.

Not true. If you conduct repeated Compton scattering the first electron recoils this way ↗, the next this way →, the next this way ↓, the next this way ↙, and so on. You achieve a "starburst spiral" of electron motion which removes the photon angular momentum. Draw a circle, then draw tangents off it with arrows on the end.

So the notion that you could somehow drain the kinetic energy from a photon until none is left, is simply nonsensical. What you can do is absorb the photon. But then you absorb its angular momentum too, not just its kinetic energy.

You cannot spearate momentum and energy. Take a simple cannonball example. You can't take away the kinetic energy without taking away the momentum. It isn't called energy-momentum for nothing.

I suppose you could amend the claim to say that a photon is made of kinetic energy and angular momentum, but at this point it becomes clear that this amounts to nothing more than saying that those are the properties a photon has.

No, when you remove
the energy-momentum you aren't left with anything. The photon is not a cannonball. It's a wave.

 

[Farsight]

The extra energy a book has because of being off the ground isn't kinetic energy.

It's called gravitational potential energy. But it is kinetic energy. You can work this out with a standing wave in a box. The wave motion is simultaneously going this way → and that way ← and there's no apparent motion, but if you whip away one side of the box the wave flies out at c. It can't do that from a standing start. So you know that kinetic energy is in the box. You also know that if the box is on the floor you have to add energy to raise it. You also know that the coordinate speed of light varies in a non-inertial reference frame. And you know that the energy you add goes into the standing wave. It still has wave motion simultaneously going this way → and that way ←, only now with the greater coordinate speed of light, there's more energy present. And it is kinetic energy. All you have to do to make it obvious is let go of the box.

 

[Farsight]

Please consider this post abusive.

OK, you're on my ignore list and you're out of this discussion. I have to say that I'm surprised that you say you're an experimentalist, but you dismiss the patent scientific evidence of photon-photon pair production, electron diffraction, Einstein-de Haas, etc, because it doesn't square with what you've been taught. There's a lesson in that somewhere.

 

[edd]

OK, you're on my ignore list and you're out of this discussion. I have to say that I'm surprised that you say you're an experimentalist, but you dismiss the patent scientific evidence of photon-photon pair production, electron diffraction, Einstein-de Haas, etc, because it doesn't square with what you've been taught. There's a lesson in that somewhere.

You still do not understand where our objections lie. Experimental results are not questioned - your unusual interpretations of them are.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Once again, Farsight is attempting to derail a discussion of physics in order to promote his Relativity+. This is getting seriously annoying. No reputable publisher or reviewer has ever passed on Relativity+. It is a theory held by Farsight alone, and properly rejected by every actual physicist that has ever stumbled across it. Furthermore, since Relativity+ has no place for the Higgs, it is pretty much off-topic in this thread (aside from, perhaps, a brief mention of the fact that this particular theory does not include the Higgs).

I, for one, would like to learn more about the Higgs and how it fits into mainstream physics. I don't care about silly arguments about whether mainstream physics has lost its way--the evidence for that is extremely dubious in my opinion, and has been discussed in great length in the threads for Relativity+. Discussions of Relativity+ should be conducted in the thread for Relativity+. They have no place in this thread, except, as I mentioned, for a brief mention.

I would like to appeal to the moderators to help get this discussion back on track.

I agree. Over the last several weeks, I have been reviewing the Leonard Susskind (Stanford) lectures on quantum field theory. The whole story about the Higgs mechanism has not yet been fully written, so there's a lot of interesting stuff to learn and discuss. For example, even though the coupling to the Higgs field for other particles is understood, the reasons for the Higgs particle itself having mass is not yet established.
For my part, I've had more than enough of Farsight's make-believe physics and antics so he is now on ignore. I'm looking forward to a discussion of some real science on this thread.

 

[Farsight]

You are not giving a well-supported explanation. This isn't me trolling by the way. This is just me informing you.

Oh yes I am Tubby. This is the best physics lesson you've had for a long while.

You don't make the rules for this forum. yOu can choose to ignore people as you wish, of course, but the discussion is likely to continue on regardless.

When moderators don't do their job, I will make the rules. If you don't want to to play by those rules, you're perfectly free to do so, and you are perfectly free to talk to somebody else.

How about you stop being abusive to everybody else?

I'm not being abusive to everybody else. I'm giving the evidence and the argument and the references. The guys who can't give an adequate response are giving the abuse. I'm just the guy who gets censored and warned for a kicking back.

At what point - after how many experts have told you that your understanding of Einstein is incorrect - would you ever consider the possibility that your understanding of Einstein is incorrect?

When I find out that Einstein said the inertia of a body depends upon its interaction with the Higgs field instead of the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content.

 

[Farsight]

I know I'm late to the discussion, but humor me, folks. Farsight, could you point out to me exactly what part of Einstein's work supports your claim?

His 1905 E=mc² paper Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content? Here's an excerpt from it:

"The kinetic energy of the body with respect to (ξ ɳ Ϛ) diminishes as a result of the emission of light, and the amount of diminution is independent of the properties of the body. Moreover, the difference K0 − K1, like the kinetic energy of the electron (§ 10), depends on the velocity.

Neglecting magnitudes of fourth and higher orders we may place

From this equation it directly follows that:—

If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c². The fact that the energy withdrawn from the body becomes energy of radiation evidently makes no difference, so that we are led to the more general conclusion that

The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content; if the energy changes by L, the mass changes in the same sense by L/9 × 10²°, the energy being measured in ergs, and the mass in grammes."

I bolded the important bit. It's unequivocal. The mass of a body depends upon its energy content, not on its interaction with the Higgs field. The bottom line is that the Higgs boson contradicts Einstein and his E=mc². Scarey. Ask around and see if you can find out how the Higgs boson gets its mass. Make sure you mention that the only ingredients in the LHC are protons and the kinetic energy given to them as they were accelerated around the ring.

 

[Farsight]

Farsight, I don't understand a lot of what's being said here. Far from it, in fact. But isn't a lot of you objections based upon the laws of physics as they apply in Newtonian space?

No. My objection is based upon what Einstein said, plus a fairly simple appreciation of the wave nature of matter. In a nutshell, when a wave moving linearly at c resists our attempts to change its state of motion, we call it momentum. When a "standing" wave moving this way → at c and that way ← at the same time resists our attempts to change its state of motion, we call it inertia. Both are resistance to a change in motion. There's a symmetry between them, wherein the transformation is to swap from it's moving to you are. The best bits of the Standard Model are based on symmetry, and replacing the "frightfully adhoc" Higgs mechanism with this symmetry will improve the Standard Model.

Those laws of physics aren't wrong, and as far as I can tell no one claims that they are wrong. They just don't necessarily apply in Quantum Mechanics, where those same laws start to breaking down due to the uncertainty principle.

They don't break down, and they're derived from symmetries. I really am not kidding about that Mudcat. Look it up.

So I don't see how your objections are relevant to the subject.

I'm saying the Higgs mechanism contradicts Einstein and a patent symmetry or "law of physics". It's an Emperor's New Clothes. A lot of people take real umbrage at that, but when you ask them to explain it, they start ducking and diving and getting all evasive. They can't explain it, and they can't explain why the inertia of a body does not depend upon its energy content. If you think I'm wrong about this, try it for yourself. When you struggle, hopefully you'll appreciate my point.

 

[Farsight]

I'm still not sure how any of this stops photons being a body. I suppose it all depends on definitions.

A photon is a wave that travels linearly through space at c. But when that wave goes round and round at c, we don't call it a photon any more.

The same arguments apply to electrons/muons/tauons/neutrinos.

Yes it does. You can diffract these things. They're all waves. But they aren't all waves that travel linearly through space at c.

I'm interested in understanding your definition of it. You seem to be invoking magical existence to it.

I don't do magic Tubby. I do plain vanilla. If you want me to explain it, start a thread.

So why all this talk about photons ceasing to exist meaning they are made of kinetic energy?

Because they do cease to exist. And instead an electron moves, either linearly through space, or up to the next orbital. And in an orbital, electrons "exist as standing waves". Don't you get it yet? Electrons exist as standing waves full stop.

Rest mass energy and kinetic energy went in and the same (combined) amount of rest mass energy and kinetic energy came out. That's the first law of thermodynamics.

Yep. And rest mass is just a measure of energy content. So what's that "Higgs boson" made of?

It's as real as momentum/mass/temperature etc...

No Tubby. Mass is just a measure of energy content. Temperature is just a measure of average kinetic energy. Momentum is just energy divided by c. It's real. And it's the only thing that is.

 

[Farsight]

You do not have evidence contradicting QED.

There is clear evidence that contradicts your misunderstanding of QED. But nevermind, forget it. Go despair somewhere else and don't waste any more of my time. Oh, and...

I will not. I am not happy about the possibility of you misleading others, although it does not seem to be happening here.

No, it isn't happening here, and it never has. I'm not misleading anybody. Others are, and I oppose it. Go and despair about it. I've got more important things to do.

 

[Farsight]

I was responding to a point you introduced as if relevant to the subject at hand...

Next.

 

[edd]

There is clear evidence that contradicts your misunderstanding of QED. But nevermind, forget it. Go despair somewhere else and don't waste any more of my time. Oh, and...

No, it isn't happening here, and it never has. I'm not misleading anybody. Others are, and I oppose it. Go and despair about it. I've got more important things to do.

This is not about my understanding or not. You said

QED doesn't model it, but it happens.

You say there is a photon/electron* interaction not modelled well by QED? I'm calling your bluff. Spell it out.

*you are permitted to replace all electrons by photons in attempting to do this.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Disclaimer: I am not a physicist.

I, for one, would like to learn more about the Higgs and how it fits into mainstream physics.

Me too. Toward that end, I suggest we go through the Higgs paper sentence by sentence and equation by equation, asking for help as needed from our resident physicists.

First sentence:

In a recent note it was shown that the Goldstone theorem, that Lorentz-covariant field theories in which spontaneous breakdown of symmetry under an internal Lie group occurs contain zero-mass particles, fails if and only if the conserved currents associated with the internal group are coupled to gauge fields.

I'm sure that's clear enough for the physicists, but I had to go looking for some background information on Goldstone's theorem and spontaneous symmetry breaking. I found this:

Tomáš Brauner. Spontaneous symmetry breaking and Nambu-Goldstone Bosons in quantum many-body systems. Symmetry 2010, 2, pages 609-657. doi:10.3390/sym2020609
http://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/2/2/609/pdf​

Before I study that paper in more detail, here's a question for the physicists: Would that relatively non-technical 49-page tutorial help me to understand the first sentence of the Higgs paper?

(Note: I'm not asking whether it would help Farsight. I'm asking whether it would help me.)

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

It is E=mc², it's does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content? That's where Einstein said "The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content". Not the measure of how that body interacts with some mysterious field. The measure of its energy content.

Are you really unaware of the difference between relativistic mass and rest mass?

The inertia of a body depends on its relativistic mass, not its rest mass. The interaction with the Higgs field gives particles non-zero rest mass, which means they have non-zero inertia even when they are not moving. They then have more inertia when they are moving, because their relativistic mass (the m in E=mc²) is greater. Likewise they have non-zero energy even when they are not moving, which of course is why nuclear reactions can convert rest mass to kinetic energy.

There is no conflict here between E=mc² and the Higgs mechanism. Your claim that there is appears to amount to the misconception that the m in E=mc² refers to the rest mass of a particle, rather than the relativistic mass.

The nub of what I've said is the energy of a body depends upon its energy content. It hasn't been soundly refuted. If you beg to differ try referring to it or repeating it.

I assume you meant "the inertia of a body depends on its energy content" above. The problem is that you appear to be operating under the misconception that this is somehow incompatible with the Higgs mechanism.

Not true. If you conduct repeated Compton scattering the first electron recoils this way ?, the next this way ?, the next this way ?, the next this way ?, and so on. You achieve a "starburst spiral" of electron motion which removes the photon angular momentum. Draw a circle, then draw tangents off it with arrows on the end.

No, the photon always has exactly one unit of angular momentum. It is a spin 1 particle. Do you understand what that means? It's angular momentum can change direction, but it can never be zero.

So the notion that you could somehow drain the kinetic energy from a photon until none is left, is simply nonsensical. What you can do is absorb the photon. But then you absorb its angular momentum too, not just its kinetic energy.

You cannot spearate momentum and energy. Take a simple cannonball example. You can't take away the kinetic energy without taking away the momentum. It isn't called energy-momentum for nothing.

Yes, I know. But I didn't say "momentum". I said "angular momentum".

Now, classically angular momentum is also associated with rotational kinetic energy. But that isn't the case for a photon. The photon's total energy is proportional to its linear momentum. The angular momentum is the same regardless of its total energy. Taking energy away doesn't reduce its angular momentum. A photon with incredibly tiny total energy still has just as much angular momentum as a super high-energy gamma photon.

No, when you remove the energy-momentum you aren't left with anything. The photon is not a cannonball. It's a wave.

You can't remove all the energy-momentum without also absorbing that 1 unit of angular momentum. And you can't absorb that 1 unit of angular momentum without also absorbing the photon (that is, you can't have a photon with zero angular momentum). The photon is not a wave (at least, not in the classical sense that you are suggesting). Nor is it a particle in the classical sense of the term. Nor is it both. Nor is it sometimes one and sometimes the other. It is a quantum mechanical object which exhibits some behavior which is very similar to a classical wave under some conditions, some behavior which is very similar to a classical particle under other conditions, and some behavior which is utterly unlike anything classical under all conditions.

 

[Farsight]

E=mc² is all about preserving the first law of thermodynamics.

Not so. It's all about converting matter into energy and vice versa. If you don't believe me, go ask the question somewhere else. Nobody will even mention the first law of thermodynamics.

Energy is the quantity that is conserved due to the temporal invariance of the laws of physics. Momentum is the quantity that is conserved due to the spatial invariance of the laws of physics. Einstein showed the correct conservation equations for both these quantities in all inertial reference frames. The idea that one is somehow the very essence of a body while the other is not is just... well... silly.

Energy and momentum aren't two different things. They're just two different aspects of the same thing. Think of a cannonball in space travelling at 1000m/s. Try stopping it in a second. You exert a constant opposing force. In the first tenth of a second it pushes you back a long way. In the next tenth it pushes you back a lesser distance, and so on. After 0.5 seconds the distance you've gone is less than the distance you're going to go. That's where the KE=½mv² comes from. There's an integral in it, and it's a way of describing the stopping distance for a given force applied to a given "mass" moving at a given speed. Momentum however is a force x time measure. After 0.5 seconds you're halfway through the stopping time, so it's a linear p=mv. They're two different measures of something very real, not two different abstract quantities conserved by the invariant laws of physics. And like I said, it's called energy-momentum for a reason.

 

[Farsight]

If by inertia you mean "mass" then no. The energy "content" of a body depends on its mass.

Uhhhhn. Tubby. You know what makes me laugh at JREF? A guy like you makes a mistake that a physicist would spot immediately. But nobody points it out. Nobody says sorry Tubby, that's back to front. When your physics knowledge improves, you'll start to notice this kind of thing, and then you'll come to appreciate that people here aren't being straight with you.

 

[Tubbythin]

It's called gravitational potential energy. But it is kinetic energy. You can work this out with a standing wave in a box. The wave motion is simultaneously going this way → and that way ← and there's no apparent motion, but if you whip away one side of the box the wave flies out at c. It can't do that from a standing start. So you know that kinetic energy is in the box. You also know that if the box is on the floor you have to add energy to raise it. You also know that the coordinate speed of light varies in a non-inertial reference frame. And you know that the energy you add goes into the standing wave. It still has wave motion simultaneously going this way → and that way ←, only now with the greater coordinate speed of light, there's more energy present. And it is kinetic energy. All you have to do to make it obvious is let go of the box.

Pardon.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Energy and momentum aren't two different things.

When one is measured in joules (or newton-metres, or kilogram-metres² per second²) and the other is measured in rather different units (kilogram-metres per second, or newton-seconds), they're unlikely to be exactly the same thing.

ETA: Come to think of it, scalar quantities are seldom the same as vector quantities.